One show I will not be watching on TV is “Big Love.” Not that I watch must TV anyway, but, just as I shun R-rated movies, I don’t like giving money to shows that are contributing to the further degradation of traditional values in our society.
The “slippery slope” argument is not very popular in the Bloggernacle. But yet it keeps on being proven true. The argument is this: legal SSM will not stop there — it will lead to arguments for legalizing polygamy, polyamory and eventually things that are even more harmful. And this is exactly the intention of “Big Love’s” creators: to destroy traditional marriage.
UPDATE: check out this Newsweek article, which makes a direct connection between SSM, “Big Love” and the polygamy rights movement.
The following excerpt from the attached Stanley Kurtz article sums up my sentiments pretty well:
This means the real challenge we face is not from a huge, nationally based movement of so-called “Mormon fundamentalists.” (These renegade polygamists are emphatically not members of the mainstream, Mormon Church.) Instead, as in Canada, the challenge will come from a complex coalition: gay radicals who favor same-sex marriage but who also want to transform and transcend marriage itself, feminists (like Canada’s Martha Bailey) who feel the same way, Hollywood liberals like Tom Hanks (an executive producer of Big Love) who want to use the media to transform the culture, civil-rights advocates like the ACLU and ex-Humphrey aide Ed Frimage, libertarian conservatives like John Tierney and an ever-larger number of young people, fundamentalist “Mormon” polygamists, and the ever-growing movement for polyamory (which features both heterosexuals and large numbers of bisexuals), and perhaps someday (as in Canada) Muslim and other non-Western immigrants.
This complex coalition ranging from old-fashioned Humphrey-style liberals to anti-marriage feminist radicals, to libertarian conservatives, is what will power future efforts to radically deconstruct marriage. And we’re only at the very beginning of these efforts. For the most part, cultural radicals are holding back, knowing that anything they say may jeopardize the movement for same-sex marriage by validating slippery-slope fears. The remarkable thing is that, at this early stage, the radicals have forced themselves so openly into the cultural argument. That is a sure sign that if same-sex marriage were to be safely legalized nationally, the way would finally be open to a truly concerted campaign to transform marriage by opening it up to polygamy and polyamory, or by replacing it with an infinitely flexible partnership system. Whatever we’re seeing now is only the barest hint of what will happen once the coast is clear.
The excerpt ends above. For some reason I cannot format correctly the below, but it is my personal conclusion:
Facing coalitions like this, people speaking out for traditional marriage are an increasingly lonely voice. I am proud to say that my Church is one of those voices. See here and here for the official Church positions on these issues.
Hmm. Aren’t you a bit uncomfortable using nearly the same rhetoric that foes of the Mormons in the 19th century used?
Clark, I guess I would be more uncomfortable if the Church took a different position than the one it is taking today. Our challenge is to follow modern-day prophets’ statements and positions during the time in which they are made. Today, those positions are extremely clear.
If by “traditional marriage,” you mean state sponsored and state enforced marriage, then I’m not sure I really care if it’s in jeopardy.
I never saw why it was so crucial that government be in the marriage business in the first place.
Holy conspiracy theory Batman!
I have a hard time taking it seriously when it is phrased “traditional” marriage. Marriage between male and female Mormons today is by no means “traditional” if it is free of quite a large amount of abuse and/or lack of individuality of the female partner.
You really think that the guy who played Forrest Gump is on a mission “to use the media to transform culture”?
I actually watched ‘Big Love’ last night. Although there were a few unnecessary scenes, it seemed to be a fairly accurate portrayal (although with a little Hollywood flair) of what is actually happening in Utah, Arizona and a few other places around the country.
I think it is a very slippery slope when we start to judge people’s intentions. How do we know that they are trying to destroy traditional marriage? Did they say that in a press interview or something? Did Tom Hank’s sister’s neighbor tell your brother-in-law’s cousin?
I don’t know how we could possibly hope to win the argument that a dramatic interpretation of reality is, in fact, a calculated attack against traditional marriage.
Nate C, my post refers to “Big Love’s” creators. Please see the following excerpt from the attached article.
Like Clark, I am quite uncomfortable taking the words from those that persecuted us – those that where labeled as the kingdom of the Devil by our prophets. John Taylor would not be pleased, I think.
But Geoff (#2), that seems to particular. It means that you’d be against the restoration of the gospel unless you were sure it was actually of God. Yet it seemed that one thing the Lord needed was a culture where the gospel could be restored. Admittedly some things were too hot even for the relative freedom of the era. (Thus the mobrocracy) But it just seems that if one determines freedoms based upon whether one agrees with the group – even for the same actions – that then there are huge issues regarding how one considers freedom.
I admit that I find this whole line of thinking pretty disturbing.
To draw an analogy (that I suspect you’ll object to), consider a law banning the creation of any new scripture unless it was really scripture. To me its the same idea. There’s a worthy goal, protecting traditional belief. But the attempt to do this is so radically overstretched that it causes problems. (Yes, I know the dianalogy is due to the first amendment – it’s only an analogy)
Now the defense I can agree with has nothing to do with traditional views of marriage. Rather it has to do with the fact these groups tend to also be engaged in pretty warped control of the culture of their members, engage in statutory rape, and are largely misogynist. If a ban on polygamy could help then I’d be for it. (Which is a different matter from saying that it actually does – I’ve heard fairly compelling arguments that making polygamy illegal drives the movements underground making prosecution for abuse much, much more difficult)
Just to add, in a certain sense I’m sympathetic to the creators. While I’m obviously opposed to homosexual marriage. I do think people ought have the right to form relationships as they wish. As I’ve often mentioned, I think the solution is to get the government out of marriage all together.
Clark and J. Stapley, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. My position is pretty clear: polygamy is right when the Lord calls for it, as he did from the 1830s (with Joseph Smith) until it dwindled out about 100 years ago (yes, I know some people still practiced polygamy after 1890). It is wrong now in 2006. If it becomes right again, loyal Church members will be informed one way or another.
Right now, polygamy is wrong and members are excommunicated for practicing it.
The Church’s position today — and indeed it has been a pretty consistent position since 1890 — is that it is our job to build up the “traditional” family, meaning one man, one woman. There will be a variety of threats to the traditional family, and SSM and the celebration of non-sanctioned polygamy are two of those threats. In the sense that “Big Love” makes polygamy seem normal and acceptable and then becomes part of the general culture, it is another sign of the general degration of our society. It appears that its creators are deliberately trying to undermine traditional marriage.
Look, I have no doubts that a post like this will not be popular in the Bloggernacle. This culture is one where people feel perfectly comfortable challenging Church positions, even when they are as clear as can be. It is also clear that the Church opposes entertainment such as this. I agree completely with the following from the Church web site:
Geoff,
Things are never as black/white, righteous/evil as some would wish to paint them. Yes, BL does look sympathetically at what it sees as benign, consensual, suburban polygamy. And yes, it does seem to be a call for the tolerance of certain other behaviours…
BUT…
…It pulls no punches in portraying commune-style polygamy as evil and degrading to women. Where’s the movement among Latter-day Saints to do the same (beyond statements simply saying they “aren’t us”)?
So, in that sense, BL should be applauded, even by those who oppose gay marriage. You see, it ain’t that simple.
Clark, regarding your #9 proposal that the government get out of the marriage business altogether, I would strongly disagree. This is an argument I hear a lot from libertarian leaning Republicans, and of course social liberals, and I simply could not disagree more. There are obviously government reasons for promoting marriage — the decline of marriage has led to many societal ills that have been well-chronicled: increasing crime, prostitution, drug use, etc.
But the single strongest reason for me, which trumps the obvious and inevitable and tired attempts to show that marriage and society are not that bad after all, is the Church’s reaction to the SSM debate. The Church could simply have remained on the sideline in this debate and pointed out that the only marriages that really count are the ones that take place in temples anyway. Of all of the churches, ours is the one that has the strongest incentive to stay neutral on SSM, yet we did not. We loudly and repeatedly stated that it is important for society to promote traditional marriage, and we are continuing to do so.
Ronan, I simply have no clue what you mean by:
The Church excommunicates polygamists. Its official web site denounces polygamy by saying:
If there’s any doubt about my position, I have repeatedly denounced polygamy as wrong on this web site, as have others. I simply don’t understand your point.
Geoff B, I’m for the most part in your camp on this one; but, conflicted because I think there may be some good that comes from the series. I posted my own thoughts, (some similar to yours) not knowing you were doing the same over here. Anyway, I can understand from where you are coming, and I am sympathetic with many of the things are you are saying.
http://messengerandadvocate.blogspot.com/2006/03/big-loves-gay-marriage-to-no-marriage.html
Guy, thanks for that link. Let me say that I always enjoy your posts when I see them. Your post on this issue was complete and consistent. Keep up the good work!
It is my own personal sense, Geoff, that Mormons simply “wash their hands” of polygamy by either ignoring the communes, or distancing themselves from it by underlining the differences between the mainstream Church and the fundamentalists. Excommunicating offenders does nothing to stop the abuse.
We tend to only engage polygamy reactively, that is, simply as a reaction against the perception of “Mormon” polygamy. It rarely gets discussed otherwise. This is something that Tapestry (the anti-polygamy alliance) are worried about.
You say that right now polygamy is wrong simply because God does not will it. What we need to make clear is that the kind of polygamy seen in Colorado City is wrong, always was wrong, and will always be wrong regardless of our perception of God’s will. Right now, I suspect FLDS think that they simply practice the Mormon polygamy that the Mormons won’t practice because it is illegal. But we should make clear that FLDS-style polygamy is abhorrent whether it is legal or not. I haven’t heard that argument made very clearly. (But I have never lived in Utah, so I may be wrong; also, I am not suggesting you have personally shirked this, Geoff. I just see some “good” in BL where you see all “evil.”)
If plural marriage per se is evil, and causes all sorts of societal harm, slippery slope, etc… then:
Was the Reynolds case correctly decided in 1878, upholding the ban on plural marriage as practiced by Latter-day Saints? Was the Mormon Church v. United States correctly decided in 1890, upholding the legal dissolution of the Church’s corporate existence and forfeiture of its property, because of its teachings regarding plural marriage? Or Murphy v. Ramsey, in 1885, upholding the denial of the vote to people who did not cohabit after passage of the law prohibiting plural marriage, but where the husband still recognized the spiritual relationship of the plural marriage and his fatherhood of the children?
In other words, was the Republican Party platform of 1856 right in asserting that polygamy and slavery were the “twin relics of barbarism”, and didn’t that Party exercised incredible foresight and wisdom in advocating the severe means necessary to force the Church to abandon this barbaric relic?
Hmm, Ronan, now I understand your point. Well, for what it’s worth, I agree with everything you write here. Count me among the Mormons who find FLDS-style polygamy abhorrent under all circumstances. I would agree that my arguments against it have primarily concentrated on supporting the Church position, but there are many, many other reasons to oppose it, and I agree with most of the ones I have heard.
DavidH, only one problem with your argument. I do not believe plural marriage as practiced by the early Saints, authorized by the Lord, was wrong. So, I do not agree that “plural marriage per se is evil.” That is quite a different thing than polygamy as practiced by the FLDS today.
David, I don’t have time to comment on some of the other points, but I don’t think Reynolds was correctly decided. (Although I’m no lawyer) I think given the changes in constitutional law the past century there is no way it would have gone that way. I tend to see the 19th century as giving at best lip service to religious freedom (and in general to many of the Bill of Rights)
Regarding Geoff (#19) and Ronan’s (#16) comments on the FLDS. I agree, but the problem is that this throws the baby out with the bathwater. It suggests that because what the FLDS do is wrong (which I agree with) that all manifestations ought be made illegal. Heavens, I’ll fully agree that typically polygamy leads to evil practices. I think that as lived even by 19th century Mormons this was true. I think that as a people the 19th century Mormons largely failed. They were given a test and didn’t live it. I read the journals of women from that era and am heartbroken. Yet, as Geoff points out, I think it was authorized by God.
How do we reconcile this? Well, clearly I think we’re forced to say not all are. But if not all are, then why should we ban it? In this sense it is fully unlike say homosexual marriages which I suspect we’d say is intrinsically incorrect.
I don’t think we should make illegal acts which many abuse. By extension I don’t think we should make guns illegal just because many abuse them nor do I think we ought (as some feminists do) judge marriage on the basis of those bad and abusive marriages. Yet with respect to polygamy we tend to judge it as a whole on the basis of horrible organizations like the FLDS. That’s unfair.
Geoff (#12), I don’t understand how the Church’s actions towards SSM have much bearing on whether the state should get out of marriage. Doesn’t the Church’s actions presuppose that the state already is involved in marriage? One could easily argue that given the failures of the Church towards state/marriage in the 19th century that it had to adopt the realistic position that the state does control marriage and act accordingly.
BTW – I’d have a hard time characterizing myself as a libertarian.
I find “FLDS-style” polygamy abhorrent. But I do not find the style of polygamy displayed by the characters in “Big Love” abhorrent (realize I’ve only read a couple reviews, and not watched it). I merely find it very problematic. I consider Brigham Young’s polygamy the same way – problematic, not “abhorrent.”
Earlier, I endorsed, like Clark, getting government out of the marriage business altogether.
However, I realize that this is not the Church’s position. Having read several official statements from various Apostles, it seems clear that the Church favors legal endorsement of the correct form of marriage.
I don’t.
I’m with Clark and J. Stapley–I have difficulty using arguments against polygamy that were used 130 years ago against the Latter-day Saints. The fact that the Church now forbids its practice and excommunicates those who enter into it does not, in my mind, mean that polygamy is inherently dangerous to “traditional values,” whatever they may be.
I guess that in my book (which may be mistaken–but if it is, what am I to think of my great-grandfathers and others?), polygamy (in the church) is malum prohibitum, not malum in se. And I am perfectly comfortable with that current prohibition, and would be comfortable with its continuing, for me at any rate, here and in the hereafter.
To take the other position, that polygamy is destructive of traditional values, requires one essentially to say either that (a) it was also destructive of those values when practiced by Latter-day Saints in the 19th century or (b) the relative isolation of the Mormon communities and the elevated level of righteousness among those saints distinguish 19th century Mormon polygamy from the wackos who practice it today. (If you think wacko too strong a term, take a look at the photograph of Warren Jeffs. The proof is in the eyes. And, don’t forget those total lunatics, the LeBaron brothers. They make the Lafferty boys look like birds of a feather.)
I will admit alternative “a” only if “traditional values” is defined in a way where the restoration of the gospel itself would also be seen as destructive of them.
Seth (#22), I think as a pragamatic reality the chances of getting the state out of the marriage business is close to nil. It’s a nice ideal situation but it’ll never happen. Given that I think the Church is quite wise to take the tract they do with respect to marriage. I think it erroneous to assume that this entails the Church rejecting what I take to be an ideal situation. Especially given that for most of the 19th century this is exactly what the Church did push for.
i find it hilarious when us mormons talk about saving “traditional marriage,” as if we have any room to talk.
so geoff, when you say that “polygamy is right when the Lord calls for it,” what are you proposing? that we try to pass a law that says polygamy is okay only when god says it is?
the way i see it either polygamy is wrong or it isn’t. i personally think it’s wrong, and that it was a mistake that we ever practiced it. but until the church says so, and officially removes and refutes any statements/doctrinces that support it, even in the “celestial” sense. not that it would forever disassociate us from polygamy in the public’s mind, but at least we’d have a leg to stand on when condemning the modern practice of it.
OK, so here’s the big question. A state legislature puts the question of the legalization of polygamy to a public vote. Do you vote to legalize it?
From what I gather here, if you vote one way, then you’re joining in on the rhetoric of those who persecuted the church. If you vote the other way, you are agreeing to the legalization of a potentially hurtful situation that the church has repeatedly spoken against.
Fun time to be alive, folks.
I don’t deny there is some irony when the Church oppose non-traditional family arrangemets with our polygamous past.
However, I believe there are some fundamental differences between the government attacks on Mormon polygamy in the 1800s and the refusal to condone same-sex marriage today.
First, many SSM advocates are appealing to a nebulous constitutional “right to marriage†as the basis for their demands, while the early Saints were trying (unsuccessfully) to invoke the rights of the well-established first amendment right to religious expression.
Second, the government is not seizing property nor throwing in jail gay couples who are currently living together, as they were Mormon couples on charges of co-habitation.
Finally, my understanding is that polygamous Mormons really could have cared less if the government condoned their marriages. They were completely satisfied with the religious sealing their marriages received by the priesthood of God. They just wanted the state to leave them alone with their families and their children to whom they were usually quite faithfully committed. Such is not the case with same-sex marriage supporters who demand the government sanction and approve their homosexual relationships.
A state legislature puts the question of the legalization of polygamy to a public vote. Do you vote to legalize it?
Polygamy should definitely be legal. I have no reservations about that. Whether I would vote for it to be recognized by the state is a slightly different matter.
Finally, my understanding is that polygamous Mormons really could have cared less if the government condoned their marriages. They were completely satisfied with the religious sealing their marriages received by the priesthood of God.
I wholly agree (along with the rest of your comparisons with gay marriage). Sometimes I wish, just on principle, that “legal marriage” were not a prerequisite to temple sealing. But I suppose it creates certain incentives to endure.
Now, I have a question for those of you with a better knowledge of Church history than me. I ask this out of honest curiosity, not for any rhetorical purpose. When polygamy became an excommunicable offense in the Church, what happened to all the preexisting polygamous families?
Geoff B: polygamy is right when the Lord calls for it, as he did from the 1830s (with Joseph Smith) until it dwindled out about 100 years ago (yes, I know some people still practiced polygamy after 1890). It is wrong now in 2006.
My question is: was the Supreme Court decision which effectively caused the Church to (eventually) back away from polygamy right or wrong?
It’d be easy to claim that the Lord had ended polygamy in the modern era had a revelation come out so stating prior to the SC’s ruling in Reynold’s vs. US, but it didn’t happen that way. The Church fought laws against polygamy as long as they possibly could, only relenting in the face of financial ruin.
So, did the Lord use the Supreme Court as a revelatory vehicle? If so, one has to wonder why He pulled an end run around the Church like that. Were the leaders of the Church unable to hear His voice for some reason? Whenever I read the ruling in Reynolds vs. US, I can’t help but have the feeling that the SC was merely a hostage to the prejudices of its day, and that the Church was right and the court was wrong.
When polygamy became an excommunicable offense in the Church, what happened to all the preexisting polygamous families?
My great grand father’s family split into two separate households. He supported both families. I have the impression that visitations required a great deal of discretion.
Nate: no way is that accurate. I am surrounded by Polygamists and I know no families that remotely resemble this one. I know every single family in my neighborhood and none of the polygamists live that well.
I don’t know about the motives of film and tv guys, I think their motives are nowhere near as high as converting the world. I think it’s pretty much about the almight dollar. Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson have the means to try to send a message, so maybe that’s his goal.
Because I live with the reality of polygamist life, I don’t think the show sounds remotely interesting, but I can see how others would find it entertaining. Frankly, I loved Will and Grace, it was a guilty pleasure, but I finally broke myself of it.
What do you mean by “split”? And, do you mean “discretion” from Church leaders? Or from law enforcement? My main question is: Did the Church (openly or otherwise) allow preexisting polygamous relationships to continue inside the Church?
(sorry, I was referring to Steven’s answer)
I know every single family in my neighborhood and none of the polygamists live that well.
I’m sure. But most of the people I know don’t live as well as the characters on Friends, either. Television with a comedy as a significant element tends to idealize things. How badly are the polygamists living?
Sorry, that should be “with comedy as a significant element”.
The polygamists in Mexico (and perhaps Canada) continued to marry post-1890 and were not ex-communicated – however, the Church did not seal the marriages (of my grandfather, great grandfather) until recent times.
Bot, that is not necissarily the case. Elder Ivans sealed several in Mexico after 1890. And if I am not mistaken the stake president even recieved the authority to “seal” a couple of instances.
It is my understand that after 1890 we stoped the performing polygamous marriages but those who were married previous to that continued being married to their wives. and in reply to 25 Mike d. I don’t understand why people think we should drop polygamy with reference to the life herafter. Its all well and good to say that we aren’t going to practice polygamy here, but I think people ask to much when they want the church to say that it can’t be done hereafter. Why shouldn’t Brigham Young and all the other early polygamist continue to be sealed to their wives? (as if by complaining to the church we could make it otherwise) And if say I was sealed to a woman and she died why shouldn’t I be able to be sealed again to another woman? and be with them both through eternity? Do you think the church has the power to change how marriage relationships are carried out in the celestial kingdom?
I fully support the churches ban on polygamy but I believe that if because of the demands of the world we denied multiple sealings, in cases like the one I mentioned, it would lead us to apostacy. Shouldn’t we, instead of coming up with all of our “brilliant” ideas on how things should be done in the lords church, seek out what his will for his church is? and what he believes should be done about polygamy?
This is a very interesting post. I have a question though. How is polygamy empowering for a woman? By letting some other sister-wife raise the kids while she goes out and gets a doctorate or climbs Mt. Everest? A woman can do that now, and get a nanny to tend the kids, or bring them along. I suppose if the other wife was okay with being the baby sitter, cook, and maid, then it would be fine.
However, I’m a woman and I just don’t buy it. To me it all boils down to fairness. How fair is to be wife #2, #4, #10…and who would want to put themselves in that position… and why would they want to? IMHO, it would only be fair if a woman is allowed to have more than one husband too. Would the men be able and willing to share one woman? Maybe…but I doubt it. Would it be empowering for a man to share job earning duties with the brother-husbands? They could even help each other share ‘honey-do’ jobs.
I get so tired of the double standard for men and women. And, I don’t buy the ‘biological difference’ issue…but that’s just me.
well there is the confusion of who’s child is who’s I would want to know which kids were mine. and besides that a woman having multiple husbands just sounds icky to me. Maybe cause when I was a teenager my mom always said that if you have sex with a person its like having sex with everyone they have had sex with. She was revering to STDs but hince the extreme ickyness factor concerning that.
Oh and I do believe that men and women naturaly have different roles. Sorry you don’t buy the biological diference thing but it seems to me that our anatomy proves that men and women have differnt purposes. No matter how much you want to get rid of a double standard there is no way I can ever become preganant. Sorry.
Ben,
Funny how the icky factor comes up when discussing more than one husband. To me, the icky factor is just as strong when discussing more than one wife.
It all has to do with cultural conditioning. However, no one knows what Heaven will be like. Maybe husband and wife co-create spirit children spontaneously and no one has to be pregnant…and they have all of eternity to do it. Imagine that? Hmmm, I love that idea, then there would be no way to justify the supposed need for more wives.
Its all a matter of perspective. If we are hear on earth to learn selflessness, then polygamy grants an excess of opportunities. The possibility that there will be more righteous women than men in the Celestial Kingdom would certainly justify the need for Celestial Polygamy. This is just conjecture based on scriptures that infer this.
I don’t think anything in Heaven will be icky, it won’t even be an issue because our perspective will be so different that whatever changes we experience we will be overcome with joy. Can you even imagine having a Celestial Body? You can’t imagine what is in store and I’m certain that child birth will be different than it is now, even if it is just because a Celestial Body will not feel pain in the sense we do now.
Roy, Each wife lived with her children in separate houses. My great-grandfather lived with one of the wives, but regularly visited the other. I believe he had to hide it from the law enforcement. To avoid further threadjack, I suggest reading Carmon Hardy, “Solemn Covenant: The Mormon polygamous passage,” University of Illinois Press, (1992). This book focuses on the post manifesto period.
Same sex marriage will be legal someday. The horse is out of the barn, the can of worms has been opened, and any other cliches you can think of.
Right now the discussion should not be on how to keep it from happening – it’s going to happen. The discussion needs to be about the impact of this on society and how we deal with it.
I know it must simply be deeply ingrained in my mind but I think, multiple wives ok. Multiple husbands GROSS! I don’t want to plow another man’s field. 🙂 I appologize in advance to whomever is offended by that coment but it is seriously what sums up my feelings about multiple husbands. GROSS!
I loved ‘Big Love’. The interesting part is the interaction between the polygamist family members and their member neighbors. Besides a few gaffes, the show was pretty well researched. Never did I think I would hear Miamaids on HBO!
Oh yeah and on the polygamy thing. Nowhere in the D&C does Celestial glory require plural marriage. Plural marriage is still practiced in 2/3 of the earth today and you actually have to divorce your multiple spouses before being allowed to receive baptism.
The Book of Mormon is the only scripture that records God forbidding Polygamy.
Members of the church that still get caught up in polygamy are probably still believing in the whole Cain priesthood thing and the white horse prophecy.
There appears to be nothing wrong with Polygamy in the world unless God has said there was as in BofM times or if it is against the law of that land. Doesnt mean its required at all. In the here and now, and thats what matters.
Geoff, thanks for writing this sane moratorium on our society as this is a ‘Slippery slope indeed!’
Big Love is just more hidden agendas with nothing more at stake than that entire downfall of our society in the long run because we just will not stand up and avoid the very appearance of evil.
Yes, SSM is coming, there is doubt about it and it will bring with it the same calamities foretold by prophets anciently (Proclamation on the Family!) and not simply because it allows our rights to be violated but because what does it lead to next, but the eventual legalization of any type of relationship that can appear before the courts to claim discrimination once SSM’s go in under this premise. In fact can you not see that this will eventually lead to the banning of any marriage of any kind because of the judicial fiasco this will cause, and then what? Is this alright then just because we think it is in somehow and someway alright to violate God’s laws?!?!
How appalling!!
Plural marriage is still practiced in 2/3 of the earth today and you actually have to divorce your multiple spouses before being allowed to receive baptism.
I desperately hope this isn’t accurate.
which part? Africa, Middle East, Far East, although technically in PRC and Siberia against the law, right? Still practiced in remote regions.
or
You can’t be baptized if you are practicing plural marriage, thus requiring the converts in many African nations to divorce their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th wives?
SSM hastens the slippery slope of societal collapse:
As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called “expansive energy,” which might best be summarized as society’s will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued.
Sincere practioners of polygamy (no incest, child brides, etc.) who have a religious perspective most likely want to make life better for their children which results in the “expansive energy” mentioned in the previous post.
SSM has no “expansive energy”, simply hedonism. SSM adherents have the eros form of love, but not the filial or agape forms.
While I’m opposed to SSM, to say it is simply hedonism is I feel extremely wrong (#52). If hedonism was what they were after they’d continue on in the life of one night stands. I think that the gay activists make a rather compelling argument that SSM would significantly decrease promiscuity among homosexuals by providing some socially acceptable form of stable relationships.
While plural marriage is practiced in about 60% of all regions (#47) that is a far cry from saying 66% of all people practice polygamy. In most of these regions, just as in Roman Palestine, the actual number engaged in polygamy was fairly small.
#53 – Clark, I hope when you say,
“I think that the gay activists make a rather compelling argument that SSM would significantly decrease promiscuity among homosexuals by providing some socially acceptable form of stable relationships.”
I really hope that you are not saying just because they ‘decrease their promiscuous nature, then this makes it alright’? Promiscuity aside, the entire thing with them is wrong wrong wrong no matter who it is done with and how often!
Seth #22, I don’t find them abhorrent, either, but I bet we couldn’t find any that really are like that today. Trust me. This is sugar coating polygamy.
As I understand it, evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists suggest that the strongest opposition to polygamy comes from single men. That is, if a limited number of men at the “top” who have the resources take multiple wives, that leaves fewer women available to marry eligible males who are lower on the resource scale, and many such males end up with no spouse or opportunity to propogate.
There is evidence that polygamous wives marry because they feel they can do better–receive more support–with a partial claim on the resource-full polygamous male than they could with a full claim on the monogamous male with significantly fewer resourse. In this sense, it is the single male who bears the brunt of polygamous societies more than the polygamous wives.
John Tierney refers to some of this in Saturday’s column in the NYTimes.
As I have contemplated this perspective on polygamy, I have wondered whether part of the implicit resource scale evaluated by LDS women in the 19th century was a “spiritual resource” measure. That is, did some think that their likelihood of exaltation was enhanced more by being a plural wife of a high Church official than the sole wife of a rank and file member? Is that part of why plural marriage seemed largely restricted to bishops and “higher”? And is this related to the pre-Woodruff practice of individuals being “sealed” to prominent Church leaders rather than their own parents and ancestors–that there is more a chance of “spiritual merit” rubbing off if one is sealed to a high Church leader than an ordinary member?
Is the reason there seemed to be relatively little objection from single males to the plural marriage system in Mormondom in the 19th century because not that many “active” LDS men were denied “active” LDS wives, because women seem to be more statistically “active” as a proportional matter?
Running-Moose (#54), I think there are degrees of wrongness. A heterosexual couple living in common law marriage (i.e. not married) is wrong, but is not as wrong as some player out hooking up with as many women as possible. Both from an LDS ethical perspective as well as in terms of both public health and social stability. If, as I suspect, many homosexuals don’t have control over their object of desire (i.e. it is physical in some sense) then a stable relationship is certainly probably the best one can hope for.
One has to be careful not to get so caught up in the best case scenario that one ignores the best achievable scenario in place of something far worse. I’m all for striving for ideals. But I think reality checks are in order as well.
David (#56), while I tend to be rather leery of evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists (I think too many of their “answers” are hand waving) I do think this is correct. One can see this both among modern polygamists as well as in 19th century polygamy. The societal stresses of single men with little hope of a stable relationship can’t be under-estimated. This alone makes me think that polygamy is problematic given the way birth rates for men go. One should note that this is starting to be a problem in Asia without polygamy simply due to couples aborting female babies. I forget the figure, but as I recall there is close to 20% more men than women in some countries. Many people are worried about what this will lead to.
I also think that it is the case that people thought being sealed to a church leader in the 19th century would help them. Not just women. (Recall that adoptions by sealing were common then as well) I certainly agree this was twisted into a pernicious doctrine. I really think that as a culture we failed miserably at living polygamy. If it was a test of our charity and our ability to eschew power plays, it showed us as all too human.
I think why there was less problem with LDS males in the 19th century was the fact they could go on missions and come back with brides. However there certainly were problems over competition for wives – especially young brides and some horrible and shocking tragedies did occur.
I like the show and think gov’t should get out of the marriage business.
Yeah, clarifying, the majority in the regions where polygamy is legal or practiced, dont practice it. Turkmenistan is considering making it legal. Again, not practicing polygamy has not kept any worthy man or woman out of the running for the celestial kingdom has it? This pracitce will end up being a small part of the history of the restoration or…it will come back. Who knows?
Again, watch Big Love and then pass judgment. It had some of Bill Paxton’s arse but other than that had one profane utterence and that was competing with all the dangs, darns, and oh my hecks. The church is not featured negatively in the first show at all. The polygamists are.
There are some racy moments but no more than on Law and Order, NYPD Blue, and other television series.
#53 & 54 Clark:
Homosexuals in a commited relationship have a 0 to 5 percent fidelity rate. See
I believe SSM is all about homosexuals’ striving for acceptance and a wish to de-construct the fidelity in marriage (e.g. > 95% in temple marriages). The average homosexual has hundreds of liasions in his lifetime.
I saw Big Love last night and it really got me thinking. First, let me say that it takes place in Salt Lake City, and they keep showing the SLC Temple in the background at every opportunity. One of the daughters in the family works in a fast food chain and makes friends with a Mormon girl. That girl is portrayed as a total prude, and keeps talking about the Church and asking about what her parents’ callings are (apparently not knowing her family situation). The dialogue was so accurate (aside from the use of “Miamaids” rather than “Young Women”) that I am convinced one of the writers must have grown up as a Mormon. The exchange was funny for me, but I wondered if anyone outside of the church would have understood it. Also, although the LDS/FLDS distinction was clear to me, I wondered how people outside of the church would have understood it. There was no obvious attempt to clarify that these families are NOT Mormons.
The thing that struck me about the show is how miserable it must be to have to juggle sex and finances with three wives, not to mention the innumerable kids. Remind me why anyone would want to do this??!!
So here is the thing that is bugging me. In law school we studied the Reynolds case, and our professor predicted that it would be overruled if a new case made its way back up to the Supreme Court. At the same time, according to this article there is an effort right now to bring a case to the SC hoping to get it overruled. So mw question is this: If, hypothetically, polygamy ceased to be illegal in the US, would the Church bring it back? Is that even a remote possibility? I think it is, and it scares me to death. Clearly polygamy is an eternal principle that the church still embraces, even though it is not currently practiced here on earth.
I have never been able to come to terms with the practice historically, and if it were re-instituted by the Church I would have to leave the church. Am I the only one that feeels that way?
If, hypothetically, polygamy ceased to be illegal in the US, would the Church bring it back?
Eventually, I believe so. But that’s nothing but baseless conjecture on my part. I think it largely depends on the ratio of active women to active men in the Church, which I don’t know offhand.
Is that even a remote possibility? I think it is, and it scares me to death.
Keep in mind that very few men would be practicing if the Lord did reinstitute polygamy, and I find it highly unlikely that anyone with a strong aversion to the principle would be asked or encouraged to engage in it.
Clearly polygamy is an eternal principle that the church still embraces, even though it is not currently practiced here on earth.
Clearly.
…if it were re-instituted by the Church I would have to leave the church.
I hope you’d ponder and pray about it first. I’m not sure I understand why you’d leave the Church over it, since you already accept it in principle.
Elder Packer highlighted D&C 134:8 (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/voice/display/0,18255,5004-1-61,00.html): “the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men.”
He said some things should be forbidden not just for criminality, but also their tendency for evil. Some things aren’t necessarily criminal (in other words they don’t immediately hurt other people), but they have a sufficient tendency to evil that warrants their being outlawed by government.
What should be illegal even if it doesn’t necessarily hurt other people (at least in the short term)? Apparently the Church thinks SSM and polygamy runs in this category – not necessarily criminal (at least SSM in Massachussets), but certainly having a tendency to evil.
Sorry, that “ponder and pray” thing probably sounded condescending. I’m sure you’ve thought about it a great deal, as many of us have. But until it’s actually reinstituted (if ever), I don’t think there’s a possibility of spiritual guidance about it. In fact, I imagine that if it were reintroduced, it would be so potentially disruptive that the prophet would urge every member to seek their own confirmation of it.
Some have speculated Isaiah 4:1 refers to many men dying in war in the last days, thus causing a situation where polygamy would be needed. (For example, the war of Argentina and Brazil against Paraguay in 1858-1864?, where something like 80% of the men in that country were killed, and polygamy was introduced for a period of time.)
Elder Packer… said some things should be forbidden not just for criminality, but also their tendency for evil. Some things aren’t necessarily criminal, but they have a sufficient tendency to evil that warrants their being outlawed by government.
I can’t find where he says that in the article you cited (I haven’t read the whole thing), but if he does I disagree with him. I did see that he quotes Robert Bork as saying, “Judicial invention of new and previously unheard-of rights accelerated over the past half-century and has now reached warp speed.”
This seems to demonstrate an extremely troubling view of what rights are.
Porter (#61) I think that the church would oppose legalization of polygamy simply because of our past history and not wanting to be associated with it for obvious reasons.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if it were legalized and polyamour became mainstream. How would the church react? I suspect that baring a significant revelation (which I don’t expect) that it wouldn’t change its current policy. I don’t think any of the Mormons in the 19th century particularly wanted polygamy and I definitely don’t think any today really do.
Cadams (#65) While that is a common reading, it’s not the only reading. Most predictions of the future are vague enough to be read many ways.
Bot (#60), the statistics quoted in there are very old and from periods long before being openly gay was socially acceptable let alone being able to have a stable relationship. Certainly homosexuals are more promiscuous than the average heterosexual. Although many scientists suspect this is simply because heterosexual males have a more difficult time finding people to engage in random coupling. The issue of whether allowing gays to enter into stable relationships would lead to more stability isn’t established by that paper and is largely beside the point. The question isn’t whether that sort of thing happens but how to best minimize those practices.
Roy, I think that Bork’s idea of rights though is very problematic. He comes from a particular brand of conservativism that certainly is different than my own. My view is that people ought fear the government and we need as much protection from government as possible. Bork’s definitely isn’t. I was a fan initially back at the end of the Reagan years. Since then though as I’ve read more of his books I’ve become very troubled. I’m no libertarian. But Bork is about as far from being a libertarian as one can be.
I think SSM is wrong because it frankly redefines marriage and thus changes the meaning and thereby the religious meaning of marriage. I’m strongly opposed to the state being able to tell religions the meaning of religious terms. And in this case that’s what they are doing.
And no, I’m no libertarian. I also oppose legalized prostitution and gambling.
Ok, so it seems that from the old testament on, God has condoned plural marriage, handmaidens, etc. From non-scriptural references in the Naghammadi library and the Popul Vuh, its hinted the likes….although again these are non-scriptural references.
The concept of plural marriage being eternal is in what way eternal? Just like alot of things we practice? And some practices are discontinued forever it seems. We no longer offer live animals up on the alter and we all know why. Was polygamy called for for a reason at that time for that time? Maybe. Will there come a time for it in the future to be accepted once again by our Father in heaven? Who knows? It isnt scripture that we for sure return to any sort of requirement that I have read of and thats ignoring conjecture by the church members and leaders.
Why in countries where it is not against the law to practice plural marriage does the church forbid a participator from getting baptized? It apparently has nothing to do with U.S. law. The church has ended the practice. This isnt even a controversial subject with my non member friends. They all accept intellectually that polygamy is just something not practiced in the U.S. and Europe. I find it to be a hotbed of discussion only among the fundamentalists and charismatics that look for anything to shoot us down with and with members of the church. Some who come close to swearing that the D&C says things it clearly doesnt.
The polygamist will actually use the gay marriage thing to argue their case.
And by the way, my children are part arab via Central America (my wife was born in Honduras) so I am not sure why the hostility against immigrants from the middle east etc. in the original post. Muslims have it wrong and so do most religions. We are still charged with being our brothers keepers and doing good to all men.
Clark, I agree with you regarding concern about state power. I am a Libertarian-leaning Republican in many ways. But the state — meaning us, the members of the state — has an obligation to preserve its continuity and survival. Marriage, and its role of creating healthy children, is essential to the continuing function of a healthy state. If you study the end of most healthy societies, it starts with the dissolution of the most basic unit, the family. So, I accept a role for the state in promoting marriage for the basic health of society. And, if you look at most areas of the law, society accepts marriage’s foundational role. Everything from tax law to immigration law concentrates on the importance of marriage, and that’s the way it should be. When we are talking about the basic survival of society, I accept state involvement (which is why I accept the state’s involvement in forming police and the army and other essential functions). I think people who say “get the government out of the marriage business” simply haven’t thought through the issue of what that would mean in reality and have not developed a thorough philsophy of what institutions are important for the state to protect.
#66
Sorry the link is http://www.lds.org/newsroom/voice/display/0,18255,5004-1-101,00.html
I apologize. Packer didn’t make emphasis on the phrase “tendency to evil.” I must have read that somewhere else, although the verse is quoted in this talk about peace officers. But I think that explains why the Church opposes some things even though those things may not immediately hurt others.
Thank you Geoff for #70 and Bot for #60!
Geoff, you are right that the end of stable societies have all come on the ending of families, and if anyone thinks that this will be any different, is sorely mistaken!
Clark, there are varying degrees of right and wrong, but that will never make SSM correct in any way, and if you are saying that it will minimize the cause and effect of this sort of behavior, then go read the Proclamation on the Family and try and tell us if the calamities promised will only come because of promiscuous homosexuality or because of the downfall of the family, or as Geoff has clarified, the downfall of society! You are completely missing the point that this truly is a slippery slope we are on and if you think that appeasing the demands of a few will slow down the decay then you have also forgotten that we are not about decay, in any form of acceleration except for ‘STOP’, but hopefully about progression to a better state, namely the Celestial Kingdom and so my final question is: How does allowing SSM bring us closer to the Celestial living? Ummm, it doesn’t, it takes us farther away!
I keep hearing about the end of civilation with the end of family and haven’t seen any links or anything to any relevant writing on the subject. I need a WHY. what else was going on when these civilizations crumbled. do you think it was the only problem, the first of many, the starter, the straw that broke the camels back? information please